"Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen" (Paul Celan)
There is a concept deeply rooted in the collective imagination of the discussion that has little to do with the experience, namely the idea that be discussed to understand and to agree. The question of because there is broad consensus on it in spite of continuing removes stains that must suffer daily, is a very complex matter. Only a child who went to buy shoes to the market with the mother may perhaps be found in this memory as soon as a plausible explanation. A trading market as they did once may perhaps be unaware of the model underlying this view is dominant but an illusion of a debate. Both parties, in fact, successfully concluded the negotiations in general and came out to them so happy. The trader asked our mother to 10 000 pounds, she gave it 3 and in the end, after a tug of war that could also be long (at the time was no time!) leaving them to him for 6. The trader was very pleased because he had obtained much of the real value of the shoes. Was also satisfied with our mother because he could boast of having saved less than 4 dollars.
Every time we get a good pace to argue with someone, guide us, there is deluded, the good intention of meeting by coming to an agreement, just as happened to the market once. We know we have different opinions from our party, but nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, we take the trouble to esporgliele and we do it as if we were able to abandon them easily in order to reach an agreement. Apparently, that is just for fun, not prey so seriously our views. Just as obviously, we do not - again just for fun - even those of others so seriously. In fact, it is the seriousness with which we consider what we are saying to your ability to hear the reasons of others. If the trader had taken seriously and had continued to claim the 10 thousand pounds would not sell many shoes. If we truly intend to meet our partner we are well aware of how the discussions take us as it were the hand and lead us to assume positions always a bit 'extreme of what might be and, therefore, views that do not belong altogether. More a topic is important to us, the more we discuss with heat, and less we wonder if you really think what you are saying. In reality we see very rarely that happens in our minds as we speak, we realize how rarely there to step back and draw the necessary conclusions from this.
The merchant and our mother not only knew well that they began to talk about defending an indefensible position, but he also admitted. Except that they did implicitly, that communicate through the availability to sell some of their initial position in order to successfully conclude the transaction. Our discussions on different issues - the sense of poetry to that of a declaration of Berlusconi - will conclude instead almost always with the increase, with the exasperation of our initial positions. Should therefore be accepted that in general there is no question to find an agreement but to expose, if not impose their own views independently of the others. To do this in the most convincing way possible we are sometimes tempted to turn away from what we actually think.
For it is precisely the contradiction to stimulate our minds in the search for even stronger arguments in defense of our views. The discussion with others is more then to take the distances to get closer to their position. But not only that normally produces a distancing ourselves from what you might think.
All this is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed, beyond good and evil, is what normally happens in a discussion and realizing it could have very positive aspects of communication.
Leaving aside the case, perhaps more frequently, that you begin a discussion with the intention of remaining silent to win by any means (even then contradicting themselves), we must ask if it could be enough good will to change their minds, or to acquire one that is the result of a well thought-out mediation between what we believe and what we believed our party. There are obviously countless matters on which you can easily find consent and that, therefore, exclude a discussion, for example if it is or is not raining (yet again the desire to stay at home instead of going for a walk can give the impression that only two drops of rain have already ). Other matters just a bit 'more complex, such as who is the greatest of Montale and Ungaretti, can not be clearly decided how to do it with a glance out the window. Should talk about it, draw their own experiences and knowledge, remember verses and comments. How can, we must ask ourselves, reach the same conclusions if everyone has read different things at different times, in all contingencies of the details, thanks to their own unique sensitivity and its unpredictable memory processes? Even if you were in agreement on the superiority, for example, Montale the reasons for that opinion must necessarily be different and this is where we found that not agree more and it becomes necessary to lay down the discussion of new distances .
We also also the case that matters very limited and partial one decides to read the same things, to access the same information and the same comments. The way they intend, however, will depend in turn on our readings and experiences. They understand the fact things in life, poetry for example, based on what is already known. For this reason there are so many views and So many opportunities for discussion. We should change the past of each of us, having lived all the same experiences. This, of course, is not a thing neither possible nor desirable.
Since the harmonic model consists of discussion on the example of buying shoes for our mother to the market can not find adequate application in common practice, would be much more useful, and dialogue, to get any time to discuss openly arguing for Thus the deepening differences with our party. The cognitive and ethical value of this conception of the discussion is uneven first recognized the necessity of having to admit to being influenced clearly the contradictory in the sense of exasperation, radicalize, their point of view. Thus one can understand that discussions are mainly used to "prove" an opinion, to see if it is okay if the "shield" our thoughts, not necessarily to acquire, own it and take it for so long until it is consumed. It will then calm and time to think about and eventually discover the need for new readings and new thinking. It is therefore inappropriate to want to continue the discussion for so long until there has been agreed. Cut short the dispute (not necessarily violent interruption of course) is much more of a successful artificial harmony perhaps more often dictated by fatigue, or the need to do other things rather than actual ability to understand one another. The order to better understand themselves and others can be reached much more easily if one meditates on the distance and if you are not subsiding in imaginative harmonies. It is, in terms only apparently paradoxical, to prolong the time of for so long that it may investigate the reasons for a calm and relaxed. The trace left by the disagreement is much more profitable for an illusory harmony of thought and will. This is because, even in seemingly paradoxical, the dialogue can begin only when the caller ceases to lead us in the opposite position, ie where it away. A possible approach to the position of others may then begin when the discussion stops.
not so foreign to our dialogue is the ability to have consciousness conditioned by the contradictory opinions expressed, ie the awareness that the opinions expressed are not our thoughts but an attempt to represent them, a staging that occurs in specific circumstances and unrepeatable. Then even if our opinions do not fully express our thoughts, if you are being influenced by contingency, by way of communicating the interlocutor and so on, might as well try to see what happens if you formulate opinions of others, precisely those of our party. In short his voice to resonate within us, to think and argue as he would, is the most radical and more open dialogue. This, again, not to abdicate in what we are and think, but exactly the opposite reason: just getting to know the other person - not only as we see from the outside but from within, as he could perceive - we can better enforce our position. Learn how to bring the opponent to a dispute dialogue within ourselves, find it within us, is, or should be the ethical imperative of a debate whose aim is to explore new ways of seeing and understanding things in life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment